I am obliged to Charles Batsworth for indicating the continuing gulf between the 'headline hype' and 'the devil in the details' of actual delivery. I have been thinking about such things lately.

I think that there are three main theories about the socio-economic role of hosting mega-events. They are:

1. The 'trickle down' benefits.
   • Laissez Faire Capitalism.
   • Los Angeles 1984, Seoul 1988, Atlanta 1996, Athens 2004

2. Social benefits can be better gained from mega-event expenditure by being embedded within a coordinated context of socially responsible urban regeneration.

   • Welfare Capitalism.
     Barcelona 1992, Sydney 2000, London 2012

3. A long-term widening and distortion of the gap in access to social capital occurs between the benefits to 'urban elites' in business and politics and the disastrous displacement of public funding from the poor.

   • Neoliberal Capitalism.
     Barcelona 1992, Beijing 2008, London 2012

I take issue with the prevailing editorial ideology which is evident in 'After the Gold Rush'. They propose the socio-economic role of the Olympics belongs within the Welfare Capitalist mode.

“...there is little evidence that past Games have delivered benefits to those people and places most in need. What is clear is that those cities that have benefited most – and Barcelona is the clearest example – have entrenched the Olympics within a broader urban strategy. The challenge for London is, therefore, to embed the preparation for and hosting of the Games into a broader social policy agenda from the outset. Given the levels of disadvantage in the East End of London, this is especially important.”

page xi Executive Summary, After The Gold Rush,

Although Fred Coalter gets nearer the mark for me:

“While events such as the Olympic Games may have some role to play [in the beneficial development of wider public participation in sport] this is only as part of a much more systematic and strategic developmental approach. This appears to be partly recognised by London 2012, who state that the physical infrastructure of the Games needs to be supported by:

• sustained government investment
• local authority commitment to sport
• re-establishing sport in schools
• commitment of the Department of Health to sport and physical activity

In fact, without being too cynical, one might conclude that, if this is done, in terms of sports development, there is little need for the Olympics!”
p105-106

From: Fred Coalter, Stuck in the Blocks, p91-106, After The Gold Rush

Better still is C Michael Hall

“Sports mega-events have therefore become integral to the entrepreneurial strategies of cities seeking to gain competitive advantage in the global economy. They provide an excellent example of the way the production of state and urban public policy has become less concerned with the evaluation of public policies within their own terms of reference than with the macro-policy context and the neoliberal policy problems of competitiveness resulting in what Peck aptly describes as 'thin policies/hard outcomes'.

...to criticize the hosting of mega-events as an economic and social development mechanism is to be doubly damned. For one contends not only with the neoliberal discourse of competition and the relentless pursuit of regeneration but also with the mythologies of the social benefits of sport. Sport is extremely hard to argue against. The inherent belief of many that sport is good for you, makes for better citizens, creates pride in the community, and generates a positive image is hard to overcome.

This belief and a relative lack of criticism of it means that, in terms of urban regeneration, many large scale sport infrastructure projects and mega-events are going to contine to be funded as it provides opportunities not only for the furtherance of corporate interests but also for politicians to be seen to be 'doing something'' in the face of global competition.

As I have noted elsewhere, investment in accessible and affordable education, health and communications technology, along with a diversified job creation strategy is far more likely to have more long-term benefits for urban economic and social well-being than investment in elite mega-sports events and infrastructure.”
p67-68

From: Urban Entrepreneurship, corporate interests and sports mega-events: the thin policies of competitiveness within the hard outcomes of neoliberalism. C Michael Hall ; in 'Sports Mega-events', social scientific analyses of a global phenomenon.

See also: Sport as Catalyst